Orr v. Trump

Court
D. Mass.
Docket number
1:25-cv-10313
Filed
Last filing
Assigned judge
Julia E. Kobick
Nature of suit
440 Civil Rights: Other
Cause
05:702 Administrative Procedure Act
Jurisdiction
U.S. Government Defendant
Jury demand
None
Case
Orr v. Trump
Cite
Orr v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass. filed Feb. 7, 2025)
Source
Docket on CourtListener(opens another site)

The 271 court documents filed in this docket, as listed for its case.

Docket entries

The entries the archive holds for this docket. For the full docket, use the link above.

Clear
Docket entries
No.DateDescriptionDocument
101District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 98 Joint MOTION for Protective Order - AMENDED AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF PSEUDONYMS (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/27/2025)Open(opens another site)
102District Judge Julia E. Kobick: AMENDED AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF PSEUDONYMS entered. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/27/2025)Open(opens another site)
103Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before District Judge Julia E. Kobick: Motion Hearing held on 5/27/2025.Case called. The Court hears arguments regarding 77 MOTION to Certify Class filed by the Plaintiffs and 79 MOTION to Apply the Preliminary Injunction to the Classes filed by the Plaintiffs. The Court takes both matters under advisement. (Court Reporter: Catherine Zelinski at [email address removed].)(Attorneys present: Jonathan Travis Thompson, Li Nowlin-Sohl, Ansel Carpenter, Aditi Fruitwala, Zoe Kreitenberg and Mona Patel for the Plaintiffs. Michael Velchik and Elizabeth Brooke Layendecker for the Defendants.) (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/27/2025)Open(opens another site)
104District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER entered. Please see attached. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 05/27/2025)Open(opens another site)
105Transcript of Motion Hearing held on May 27, 2025, before Judge Julia E. Kobick. The Transcript may be purchased through the Court Reporter, viewed at the public terminal, or viewed through PACER after it is released. Court Reporter Name and Contact Information: Catherine Zelinski at [email address removed]. Redaction Request due 6/20/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/30/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/28/2025. (DRK) (Entered: 06/02/2025)Open(opens another site)
106NOTICE is hereby given that an official transcript of a proceeding has been filed by the court reporter in the above-captioned matter. Counsel are referred to the Court's Transcript Redaction Policy, available on the court website at https://www.mad.uscourts.gov/caseinfo/transcripts.htm (DRK) (Entered: 06/02/2025)Open(opens another site)
107RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump re 104 Order . (Layendecker, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/03/2025)Open(opens another site)
108Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Support re 77 MOTION to Certify Class SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING CLASS DEFINITIONS filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 06/03/2025)Open(opens another site)
109MOTION to Intervene by Joshua Harrell. (EZG) (Entered: 06/04/2025)Open(opens another site)
110Intervenor's Brief by Joshua Harrell. (EZG) (Main Document 110 replaced on 6/5/2025) (EZG). Modified on 6/5/2025: to replace previous document that was missing a page (EZG). (Entered: 06/04/2025)Open(opens another site)
111NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 75 Preliminary Injunction, 74 Memorandum & ORDER, by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump. Fee Status: US Government. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 7/3/2025. (Layendecker, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/13/2025)Open(opens another site)
112Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 111 Notice of Appeal. (MAP) (Entered: 06/13/2025)Open(opens another site)
113USCA Case Number 25-1579 for 111 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States of America, Marco Rubio, U.S. Department of State, Donald J. Trump. (MAP) (Entered: 06/13/2025)Open(opens another site)
114Opposition re 109 MOTION to Intervene filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 06/13/2025)Open(opens another site)
115District Judge Julia E. Kobick: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ECF 77, is GRANTED as MODIFIED by this Court. The following classes are CERTIFIED:1. A class of all people (1) whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and/or who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and (2) who have applied, or who, but for the Passport Policy, would apply, for a U.S. passport issued with an "M" or "F" sex designation that is different from the sex assigned to that individual under the Passport Policy ("M/F Designation Class");2. A class of all people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to them under the Passport Policy and who have applied, or who, but for the Passport Policy, would apply, for a U.S. passport with an "X" designation ("X Designation Class"). Excluded from these classes are any judge presiding over this action and the plaintiffs in Schlacter v. U.S. Department of State, No. 25-cv-01344 (D. Md. filed Apr. 25, 2025).Plaintiffs Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Chastain Anderson, Drew Hall, Bella Boe, Reid Solomon-Lane, Viktor Agatha, David Doe, AC Goldberg, and Chelle LeBlanc are APPOINTED as representatives of the M/F Designation Class. Plaintiffs Sawyer Soe and Ray Gorlin are APPOINTED as representatives of the X Designation Class. Plaintiffs' counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, and Covington & Burling LLP are APPOINTED as class counsel. The plaintiffs' motion to apply the preliminary injunction to the classes, ECF 79, is GRANTED. A separate order will issue memorializing the preliminary injunction entered by the Court. SO ORDERED. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/17/2025)Open(opens another site)
116District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ORDER OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION entered. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 06/17/2025)Open(opens another site)
117MOTION to Enforce or Modify Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Briefing by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane.(Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 06/25/2025)Open(opens another site)
118MEMORANDUM in Support re 117 MOTION to Enforce or Modify Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Briefing filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Isaac D. Chaput, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 06/25/2025)Open(opens another site)
119District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. In accordance with Local Rules 5.4(d) and 7.1(b)(2), the defendants' response to the plaintiffs' motion to enforce or modify the preliminary injunction, ECF 117, shall be due on or before July 3, 2025. The plaintiffs may file a reply brief on or before July 7, 2025. A hearing on the motion will be held at 2pm on July 10, 2025 in Courtroom 3. (EZG) (Entered: 06/26/2025)Open(opens another site)
120ELECTRONIC NOTICE Setting Hearing on Motion 117 MOTION to Enforce or Modify Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Briefing - Motion Hearing set for 7/10/2025 02:00 PM in Courtroom 3 (In person only) before District Judge Julia E. Kobick. (EZG) (Entered: 06/26/2025)Open(opens another site)
121NOTICE of Appearance by M. Jared Littman on behalf of United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump (Littman, M. Jared) (Entered: 06/26/2025)Open(opens another site)
122ANSWER to 76 Amended Complaint, by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump.(Layendecker, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/01/2025)Open(opens another site)
123Opposition re 117 MOTION to Enforce or Modify Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Briefing filed by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Dooley Declaration)(Layendecker, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/03/2025)Open(opens another site)
124REPLY to Response to 117 MOTION to Enforce or Modify Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Briefing / Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce or Modify Preliminary Injunction and for Expedited Briefing filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 07/07/2025)Open(opens another site)
125District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.The plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce or Modify Preliminary Injunction, ECF 117, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.On June 17, 2025, the Court certified two classes, ECF 115, and issued a preliminary injunction requiring defendants Marco Rubio, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, and the U.S. Department of State to issue to a subset of those class members (the "PI Class") passports bearing a sex marker—"M," "F," or "X"—consistent with the applicant's gender identity, ECF 116 . Roughly one week later, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction, alleging that the defendants had neither complied with it nor meaningfully explained the steps they were taking to do so. ECF 117, 118 . As the government explains in its opposition, ECF 123, and supporting declaration, ECF 123-1, the State Department temporarily suspended the processing of passport applications for potential PI Class members after the preliminary injunction was entered so that it could develop compliant workflows. ECF 123-1, ¶ 9. But the government subsequently finalized those workflows and, since July 1, 2025, it has processed PI Class members' passport applications in accordance with the preliminary injunction. See id. ¶ 10. The Court concludes that the defendants have made "diligent, good faith efforts, culminating in substantial compliance" with the preliminary injunction. Langton v. Johnston, 928 F.2d 1206, 1220 (1st Cir. 1991). Ryan M. Dooley, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services, avers that the State Department "fully understands its obligation to comply with" the preliminary injunction, and "intends to maintain the new processes and procedures developed to comply with the [preliminary injunction] for as long as [it] is in force." ECF 123-1, ¶¶ 8, 13. Indeed, the State Department has posted to its website an attestation form, which largely incorporates language from the preliminary injunction order, that applicants can fill out to self-identify as members of the PI Class. Compare ECF 116, ¶ 3, with ECF 123-1, Ex. A. The State Department has also updated its "Sex Markers in Passports" web page to inform PI Class members of their right to apply for and receive a passport in accordance with the preliminary injunction. See ECF 123-1 ¶ 10; id. Ex. B. And it has developed an "information request letter" "to be sent to passport applicants who do not include the Attestation but who the Department has reason to believe may be members of the PI Class." Id. ¶ 11. The plaintiffs nevertheless argue that the defendants are not in full compliance with the preliminary injunction for two reasons. See ECF 124 . They first take issue with the attestation form. Whereas the Court authorized the defendants to require PI Class members to attest, as relevant here, "my gender identity is different from the sex assigned to me at birth," ECF 116, ¶ 3, the State Department's attestation form states only, "[m]y gender identity is different from my sex." ECF 123-1, Ex. A. The plaintiffs contend that by omitting the phrase, "assigned to me at birth," the attestation form "effectively imposes Defendants' substantive theory of sex on attesting class members." ECF 124, at 5. That overstates the matter. The relevant sentence on the form reads: "If I am selecting a sex marker that is different from the sex marker on my original birth certificate . . . I confirm that at least one of the following is true": (1) "My gender identity is different from my sex," or (2) "I have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria." ECF 123-1, Ex. A (emphasis added). In context, the term "sex" clearly refers to the sex listed on the applicant's "original birth certificate." Id. Signing the attestation form entitles PI Class members to obtain a passport in accordance with the preliminary injunction. As the plaintiffs acknowledge, it "does not indicate their acceptance of Defendants' conception of sex or gender identityOpen(opens another site)
126ELECTRONIC NOTICE Canceling Hearing - In light of the Court's order at ECF 125, the motion hearing set for 7/10/2025 is canceled. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/09/2025)Open(opens another site)
127MOTION to Dissolve the June 17, 2025 Preliminary Injunction and For a Stay of That Injunction Pending Resolution of This Motion, and Request for an Indicative Ruling Concerning the April 18, 2025 Preliminary Injunction by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Agnew Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Second Dooley Declaration)(Layendecker, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/09/2025)Open(opens another site)
128District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.Joshua Harrell's Motion to Intervene, ECF 109, is DENIED.On June 3, 2025, Joshua Harrell, a nonbinary American citizen, filed a motion to intervene as of right in this litigation, ECF 109, primarily for purposes of arguing in support of the plaintiffs' then-pending motion for class certification, ECF 77, which was subsequently granted as modified by this Court, ECF 115 . The plaintiffs oppose Harrell's motion, contending that they adequately represent Harrell's interests. ECF 114 . The defendants did not respond to Harrell's motion, and the deadline to do so has passed. See Local Rule 7.1(b)(2).Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, a court must permit "anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest." Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). "To prevail on a motion to intervene as of right, a proposed intervenor must demonstrate: '(1) the timeliness of [their] motion; (2) a concrete interest in the pending action; (3) a realistic threat that resolution of the pending action will hinder [their] ability to effectuate that interest; and (4) the absence of adequate representation by any existing party.'" Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. LBRY, Inc., 26 F.4th 96, 99 (1st Cir. 2022) (bracketed text altered) (quoting T-Mobile Ne. LLC v. Town of Barnstable, 969 F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 2020)). "A failure to satisfy any one of these four requirements is sufficient grounds to deny a request for intervention as of right." Id."When a proposed 'intervenor's objective aligns seamlessly with that of an existing party . . . a rebuttable presumption of adequate representation attaches.'" Id. (quoting T-Mobile, 969 F.3d at 39). That presumption applies here. Harrell's objective is to travel internationally "using a US passport that correctly identifies Harrell." ECF 110, at 1. Harrell has an X marker on their state driver's license and presumably seeks the same on their passport. See id. This objective "'aligns seamlessly'" with that of the plaintiffs, who have obtained preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of certain individuals who, as relevant here, seek an X marker on their passport. LBRY, 26 F.4th at 99 (quoting T-Mobile, 969 F.3d at 39). If Harrell does not currently possess a passport with an X marker, and their gender identity is different than their sex assigned at birth or they have gender dysphoria, they are entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. See ECF 115, at 32; ECF 116 ; Swinton v. SquareTrade, Inc., 960 F.3d 1001, 1005 (8th Cir. 2020) ("There is a presumption of adequate representation when the persons attempting to intervene are members of a class already involved in the litigation or are intervening only to protect the interests of class members." (quotation marks and citation omitted)).Harrell contends that their interests are inadequately represented because the plaintiffs "have declined to raise at least two necessary arguments that Harrell intends to raise: the hazard of criminal prosecution, and timeliness." ECF 109, at 3; see ECF 110, at 4-5. But neither a "proposed intervenor's desire to present an additional argument" nor "a difference in litigation tactics support[s] a finding of inadequate representation." LBRY, 26 F.4th at 99, 100. The plaintiffs are cognizant of the alleged threat of criminal prosecution identified by Harrell. See ECF 114, at 2 n.1. And as the Court previously noted, the plaintiffs have expeditiously litigated this case since its inception. See ECF 115, at 20. Harrell has accordingly not dispelled the presumption of adequate representation, and their request to intervene as of right is denied. See LBRY, 26 F.4th at 99. In a footnote, Harrell contends that the Court should, in the alternative,Open(opens another site)
129Copy re 128 Electronic Order emailed and mailed to Joshua Harrell on 7/10/2025. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/10/2025)Open(opens another site)
130District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.The defendants' Motion to Dissolve the June 17, 2025 Preliminary Injunction and for a Stay of that Injunction Pending Resolution of the Motion to Dissolve, ECF 127, is DENIED.This case involves changes that the State Department made to its policy concerning passport sex markers (the "Passport Policy") in accordance with Executive Order 14168 (Jan. 20, 2025). On April 18, 2025, the Court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoined the enforcement of the Passport Policy as to six of the original plaintiffs. ECF 74, 75 . The Court concluded, among other things, that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims challenging the Executive Order and Passport Policy for four independent reasons. Specifically, the Court concluded that the Executive Order and Passport Policy likely violate the equal protection principles safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment because they (1) discriminate on the basis of sex and do not survive intermediate judicial scrutiny because they are not substantially related to an important governmental interest, and (2) are based on irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans. See id. at 16-32. The Court further concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), because the Passport Policy (3) is arbitrary and capricious and (4) was adopted without observance of procedure required by the Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA"), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq. See ECF 74, at 33-46. The government defendants appealed the Court's decision on June 13, 2025, see ECF 111, and the appeal is now pending in the First Circuit.On June 17, 2025, the Court granted as modified the plaintiffs' motions to certify two classes and to extend the preliminary injunction to a subset of those classes (the "PI Class"). ECF 115, 116 . The parties agreed that their arguments regarding the original plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits applied with equal force to members of the PI Class. See ECF 80, at 7-9; ECF 89, at 1-2. The Court accordingly concluded that PI Class members were likely to succeed on their equal protection and APA claims for the same reasons as the original plaintiffs. ECF 115, at 21-22.On July 9, 2025, the government filed a motion to dissolve the June 17, 2025 preliminary injunction, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decision in United States v. Skrmetti, 145 S. Ct. 1816 (2025), "is a significant change in law that warrants dissolution of the preliminary injunction." ECF 127, at 5. In the government's view, "Skrmetti undermines this Court's conclusion that the Passport Policy discriminates on the basis of sex and is therefore subject to heightened scrutiny." Id. The government also contends that the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on their claim that the Passport Policy was adopted without observance of procedure required by the PRA because the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") recently approved the operative passport application forms in conformance with the PRA. See id. at 11-12; ECF 127-1, ¶ 4.A motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction "depend[s] on the same considerations that guide a judge in deciding whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction in the first place." Knapp Shoes, Inc. v. Sylvania Shoe Mfg. Corp., 15 F.3d 1222, 1225 (1st Cir. 1994). "The familiar quartet includes likelihood of success, the threat of irreparable injury to the party seeking interim relief, the equities and the public interest." Id. The final two factors merge where the government is the party opposing the injunction. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009). The moving party "bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision or dissolution of the injunction." Alto v. Black, 738 F.3d 1111, 1220 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see Concilio de Salud InteOpen(opens another site)
131NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 130 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 116 Preliminary Injunction, 115 Memorandum & ORDER, by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump. Fee Status: US Government. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: A Transcript Report/Order Form, which can be downloaded from the First Circuit Court of Appeals web site at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov MUST be completed and submitted to the Court of Appeals. Counsel shall register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/cmecf. Counsel shall also review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf. US District Court Clerk to deliver official record to Court of Appeals by 7/31/2025. (Layendecker, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/11/2025)Open(opens another site)
132Certified and Transmitted Abbreviated Electronic Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 131 Notice of Appeal. (MAP) (Entered: 07/12/2025)Open(opens another site)
133NOTICE of Scheduling Conference - This hearing will be conducted by video conference. Counsel of record will receive a video conference invite at the email registered in CM/ECF. If you have technical or compatibility issues with the technology, please notify the courtroom deputy of the session as soon as possible. Scheduling Conference set for 8/5/2025 04:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (Remote only) before District Judge Julia E. Kobick. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Scheduling Order Template)(Currie, Haley) (Entered: 07/14/2025)Open(opens another site)
134MOTION to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Appeals of Preliminary Injunctions by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump.(Littman, M. Jared) (Entered: 07/16/2025)Open(opens another site)
135JOINT SUBMISSION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff AC Golderg Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 2 Plaintiff Ashton Orr Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 3 Plaintiff Bella Boe Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 4 Plaintiff Chastain Anderson Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 5 Plaintiff Chelle LeBlanc Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 6 Plaintiff David Doe Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 7 Plaintiff Drew Hall Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 8 Plaintiff Ray Gorlin Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 9 Plaintiff Reid Solomon-Lane Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 10 Plaintiff Sawyer Soe Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 11 Plaintiff Viktor Agatha Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement, # 12 Plaintiff Zaya Perysian Local Rule 16.1(D)(3) Statement)(Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 07/29/2025)Open(opens another site)
136Opposition re 134 MOTION to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Appeals of Preliminary Injunctions filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 07/30/2025)Open(opens another site)
137District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered.The defendants' motion to stay district court proceedings pending appeal of the preliminary injunction orders, ECF 134, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for the reasons stated on the record. The plaintiffs' claims raising constitutional arguments—counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the amended complaint—shall be stayed pending resolution of the defendants' appeal of the preliminary injunction orders. Counts 6 and 7 of the amended complaint, which assert claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A) and (2)(D), will not be stayed. In connection with those latter claims, the defendants are ORDERED to file the administrative record by August 27, 2025. The parties are further ORDERED to confer and file a joint status report by September 17, 2025, containing proposals for a scheduling order to follow. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 08/06/2025)Open(opens another site)
138Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before District Judge Julia E. Kobick: Scheduling Conference held on 8/5/2025 by video conference.Case called. The Court notes it has received and reviewed the parties' joint submission at 135 and has read and reviewed the briefing documents regarding the defendants' Motion to Stay, ECF 134 . The Court informs the parties of its position on how to proceed with the case given the motion and the appeal. The defendants to file the administrative record within 21 days. The parties to confer after the filing of the record and submit a joint status report/schedule that includes a briefing schedule within 21 days after the filing of the administrative record. The Court asks the parties to confer about preservation. Attorneys present: Isaac D Chaput, Robert Gianchetti, Sruti J. Swaminathan, Jessie J. Rossman, Zoe Kreitenberg and Jon Warren Davidson for the Plaintiffs. M. Jared Littman for the Defendants. Court Reporter: Catherine Zelinski at [email address removed]. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 08/06/2025)Open(opens another site)
139NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Zoe Kreitenberg (Kreitenberg, Zoe) (Entered: 08/07/2025)Open(opens another site)
140ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump (Layendecker, Elizabeth) Modified on 8/27/2025: to adjust docket text (Currie, Haley). (Entered: 08/27/2025)Open(opens another site)
141JOINT STATUS REPORT by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 09/11/2025)Open(opens another site)
142District Judge Julia E. Kobick: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. The Court notes the parties' joint status report, ECF 141, and hereby ADOPTS the schedule and page limits proposed by the parties for briefing summary judgment motions. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 09/15/2025)Open(opens another site)
143NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Herrmann on behalf of Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, Drew Hall, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane (Herrmann, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/15/2025)Open(opens another site)
144Mail sent to Joshua Harrell on 7/10/2025, Returned as Undeliverable. (EZG) (Entered: 09/30/2025)Open(opens another site)
145MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Six and Seven of the Amended Complaint by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane.(Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 10/17/2025)Open(opens another site)
146MEMORANDUM in Support re 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Six and Seven of the Amended Complaint filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 2 Declaration of Isaac D. Chaput, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N, # 17 Exhibit O, # 18 Exhibit P, # 19 Exhibit Q, # 20 Exhibit R, # 21 Exhibit S)(Chaput, Isaac) Modified on 10/17/2025: Statement of Facts removed from this entry and refiled correctly in separate entry - please see ECF 147 for correct filing (Currie, Haley). (Entered: 10/17/2025)
147Statement of Undisputed Material Facts re 145 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Six and Seven of the Amended Complaint filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Currie, Haley) (Entered: 10/17/2025)Open(opens another site)
148MOTION to Stay Briefing Schedule in Light of Lapse of Appropriations by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump.(Littman, M. Jared) (Entered: 10/22/2025)Open(opens another site)
149Opposition re 148 MOTION to Stay Briefing Schedule in Light of Lapse of Appropriations filed by Viktor Agatha, Chastain Anderson, Bella Boe, David Doe, AC Goldberg, Ray Gorlin, Drew Hall, Chelle LeBlanc, Ashton Orr, Zaya Perysian, Sawyer Soe, Reid Solomon-Lane. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Isaac D. Chaput, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Chaput, Isaac) (Entered: 10/22/2025)Open(opens another site)
150Consent MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Further Support of Motion for a Stay of Briefing Schedule in Light of Lapse of Appropriations by United States of America, U.S. Department of State, Marco Rubio, Donald J. Trump. (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Reply in Further Support of Motion for a Stay of Briefing Schedule in Light of Lapse of Appropriations)(Littman, M. Jared) (Entered: 10/24/2025)Open(opens another site)